Date of Award

Degree Type

Degree Name

Committee Chair

Rights

Abstract

There have been several reports in the literature documenting various methods of binocular refractions and how they compare to traditional refractive methods. However, no studies have been published in which the subjects were allowed to compare the two prescriptions subjectively. A total of eighty-one subjects was assessed. Each was given two refractions: a traditional one and a binocular one utilizing the AO Vectographic Slide. Forty-nine of these subjects had significant differences in the prescriptions and of these, fifteen chose to participate in a wearing trial using both of the prescriptions. The percentage of eyes showing more than a 0.25D change was 20% in spherical power, 22% in cylindrical power, and 27% in equivalent spherical power. Nine percent of eyes showed an axis shift equivalent to a 0.25D induced change in power. Eight percent of subjects had a change in anisometropia based on the equivalent sphere and 19% of subjects required a vertical prism on the binocular refraction. In the clinical trial, 42% preferred the binocular prescription, 28% preferred the traditional prescription, and 28% liked both prescriptions equally.